OSHA Inspection: U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, WFRC MARROWSTONE MARINE FIELD STATION

Issued

Sep 9, 2016

Abate by

Nov 30, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1290

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1048(d)(2)(ii): The initial monitoring process was not repeated each time there was a change in production, equipment, process, personnel, or control measures which could have resulted in new or additional exposure to formaldehyde:    a) Lab L-108, where monitoring for formaldehyde had not been repeated when changes occurred including:    1. A change in personnel that occurred approximately two years prior in 2014.

Issued

Sep 9, 2016

Abate by

Oct 27, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1290

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1048(n)(1): The employer did not ensure that all employees who were assigned to workplaces where there was exposure to formaldehyde participated in a training program:    a) Facility, where monitoring for formaldehyde conducted by the employer in October 2008 indicated exposure levels of 0.4 parts per million (ppm).    Note:  If the employer can show, using objective data, that employees were not exposed to formaldehyde at or above 0.1 ppm, the employer is not required to provide training.

Issued

Sep 9, 2016

Abate by

Oct 27, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1290

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1048(n)(2): The employer did not provide employees with information and training on formaldehyde at the time of their initial assignment and/or wherever a new hazard from formaldehyde was introduced into their work area:    a) Lab L-108, where the employer did not provide training to employees:    1. Upon initial assignment.    2. When a change in process that included the use of LabChem Inc. Formaldehyde, 37% w/w occurred.

Issued

Sep 9, 2016

Abate by

Oct 27, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(6)(ii): Except as provided in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(7) and 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(8), the employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the product identifier and words, pictures, symbols, or combination thereof, which provide at least general information regarding the hazards of the chemicals and which, in conjunction with the other information immediately available to employees under the hazard communication program, would provide employees with the specific information regarding the physical and health hazards of the hazardous chemical:   a)  Facility, where containers not equipped with hazard warnings included:  1. Baker Lab Breezeway, a plastic squeeze bottle containing 95% ethanol.  2. Baker Lab Breezeway, a glass burner containing 95% ethanol.  3. Rainier Lab, the fish net disinfectant tank containing iodine and water mixture.  4. Olympus Lab, the pressurized sprayer containing a germicidal bleach and water mixture.   5. Lab L-108, a glass burner containing 95% ethanol.  6. Lab L-108, two spray bottles containing 70% ethanol.  7. Lab L-108, a plastic bottle containing 70% ethanol.  The U.S. Geological Survey was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(ii), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1044093, citation number 1, item number 6b and was affirmed as a final order on April 10, 2015 with respect to a workplace located at Seattle, WA.

Issued

Sep 9, 2016

Abate by

Oct 27, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1450(e)(4): The employer did not review and evaluate the effectiveness of the Chemical Hygiene Plan at least annually and update it as necessary:   a) Facility, where the annual review of the chemical hygiene plan had not been conducted since February 17, 2011.